Some questions to libertarians

[Tangent]

I would like to put a few questions to the collective body of prominent libertarians that seem to inhabit the S&C section of this board, primarily centering around the concept of 'freedom' - which libertarians seem to argue is the central pillar of their philosophy. I find this strange, as to me the ideology seems to be focused around transfering economic power away from the people and their reprasentatives, and putting it in the hands of unelected, wealthy individuals with as few strings attached as possible.

So:

Does the libertarian concept of freedom include the freedom for workers to unionise and collectively bargain with their employers over wages/conditions?

Does it include the freedom for the people of small towns and villages, through local government referenda/plebiscites, to say, block a WalMart or similar large store setting up in town and driving the locally owned shops out of business by means of their bulk purchasing power?

Does it include the freedom for people to disagree with free-market ideology, without being killed, tortured or incarcerated, as in Pinochet's Chile?

Does it include the freedom for the people, democratically, to vote in a socialised health care system, the nationalisation of transport or utilities, a system of price controls, or other anti-free market policies?

Does it include the freedom for the people to maintain ownership of public land, such as town squares and parks, and block the purchase of such land by corporations and businesses?

Does it include the freedom for the people to vote in a higher minimum wage, or a higher minimum standard of working conditions?

Does it include the freedom for individuals to criticise corporate bodies, without fear of being hauled in to court on some jumped up libel/slander charge, and then fined more than they can ever hope to own?

That is all, for now.

[Witan]

I've wondered the same thing. I'm all for freedom, but it seems like libertarians are totally focussed on corporate freedom, at the expense of personal freedom.

I guess "social libertarian" would be more in line with what I think.

[kikachuck]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Does the libertarian concept of freedom include the freedom for workers to unionise and collectively bargain with their employers over wages/conditions?

Of course. People can unionize if they wish, but cannot be mandatory, as it often is. But the employer has rights as well and if he/she doesn't want to acknowledge the union, he/she has the right to.

Does it include the freedom for the people of small towns and villages, through local government referenda/plebiscites, to say, block a WalMart or similar large store setting up in town and driving the locally owned shops out of business by means of their bulk purchasing power?

Wal-mart has the right to build where it wants, as long as it is all done within the law. People do, essentially, have a way of voting whether wal-mart exists, its called shopping at the store or not.

Does it include the freedom for people to disagree with free-market ideology, without being killed, tortured or incarcerated, as in Pinochet's Chile?

What, exactly, does Pinochet have to do with libertarianism? Yeah, he supported free markets, but he wasn't even close to what you would call libertarian. The answer to that question is obvious.

Does it include the freedom for the people, democratically, to vote in a socialised health care system, the nationalisation of transport or utilities, a system of price controls, or other anti-free market policies?

Does it include the freedom for the people to maintain ownership of public land, such as town squares and parks, and block the purchase of such land by corporations and businesses?

Does it include the freedom for the people to vote in a higher minimum wage, or a higher minimum standard of working conditions?

I don't believe a libertarian system would allow voting on whether to take away somebody else's rights. Whether it's the right of a corporation to run its affairs how they see fit, the right of somebody to have a job (which many wouldn't under higher minimum wage laws), or take away somebody's company.

Does it include the freedom for individuals to criticise corporate bodies, without fear of being hauled in to court on some jumped up libel/slander charge, and then fined more than they can ever hope to own?

Back to the Pinochet thing? Of course it does.

[Tangent]

I thank you, Kikachuck, for your spirited response, I must admit I do bear some grudging respect for your tenacity in defending the somewhat doomed position that libertarianism is an ideology of personal freedoms. Sadly, however, it does seem to me that, well: If my last post were a minefield, then you just cleared it - in the most limb-detatching way possible.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

People can unionize if they wish, but cannot be mandatory, as it often is. But the employer has rights as well and if he/she doesn't want to acknowledge the union, he/she has the right to.

I agree, unionisation should never by mandatory - indeed it is illegal for it to be compulsory in my country, thank you very much, "Mrs T" - our saviour from the twin evils of stable employment and socialist oppression. However, you seem to be somewhat proving my point here in your statement that the employer (an unelected, wealthy individual - or a corporation, depending on the way you want to look at it) can ignore the collective of their employees. This, I presume, means that they can fire at will, and slash wages and conditions as they want, all in the face of earnest protests from the workers - and the law (made, I remind you, by the people - democratically) would be unable to touch the company. Similarly, I presume you advocate that the workers would not be able to bring unlawful dismissal charges against the company in this case - ergo, the corporation can persecute the workers, who are in turn stripped of any defence. Tres bon.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

Wal-mart has the right to build where it wants, as long as it is all done within the law. People do, essentially, have a way of voting whether wal-mart exists, its called shopping at the store or not.

Again, you advocate giving the unelected individual or the corporation the right to steam-roller over the majority vote of the people. Who makes the laws? The government. Who elects the government? The people. Who votes on refferenda or plebiscites? The locals. Yet you suggest a multinational be let drive all their local businesses out of trading because it is their right as a coporation to do so. People cannot vote with their feet by not shopping at WalMart if there are no other stores left to shop at.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

What, exactly, does Pinochet have to do with libertarianism? Yeah, he supported free markets, but he wasn't even close to what you would call libertarian. The answer to that question is obvious.

Would you describe Margaret Thatcher as a libertarian? She was good friends with Pinochet. She was also good friends with Ronald Reagan (libertarian?). Milton Friedman was highly supportive of Pinochet - and he founded libertarianism, essentially. Pinochet has a lot to do with libertarianism, as his regime involved over-riding democracy with corporate interests, much as you suggest in your post.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

I don't believe a libertarian system would allow voting on whether to take away somebody else's rights. Whether it's the right of a corporation to run its affairs how they see fit, the right of somebody to have a job (which many wouldn't under higher minimum wage laws), or take away somebody's company.

Ah, so I see a libertarian system is not a democracy. That is good to know. Why should the majority (the people), not be allowed to curtail the rights of the individual (the corporations and their owners) to influence their lives? No man is good enough to rule another without that other's consent, and all that.

I am interested, do you defend people's rights to rape or murder others? Because those are issues where people's rights to commit evil have been removed under a democratic system, just as people's rights to say, use child-labour to manufacture their products should be able to be curtailed under a democracy.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

Back to the Pinochet thing?

Er, no, the libel point did not refer to Pinochet - he preffered to "disappear" those who objected to his free-marketeering. Libel cases have been brought against individuals by corporations all over the world, and those individuals are often fined ridiculously huge sums of money. It does not seem particularly just, when the company can purchase the backing of the best legal team conceivable, whereas the individual is often reliant on a state-appointed advocate.

Still, I am glad you can still resolutely claim to advocate "freedom", while being opposed to democracy and giving corporations rights over people, while stripping people of any say in the actions of corporations. Corporatism indeed - Mussolini must be Irish-dancing in his grave.

I have thought of another question:

Where is the "freedom" in the child-labour used by certain garment manufacuring companies (who shall remain un-unamed, for I fear a libel suit on the grounds it is technically their sub-contractors and therefore the companies themselves are completely innocent) to produce their products in countries like China and Indonesia? Does the corporation have the right to take those children's freedoms away? Why do the people not have the right to insist on, say, that manufacturing companies manufacture their goods in the countries in which they are intended for sale - thereby avoiding the human-rights issues and creating domestic jobs?

I presume the answer is, again, that the corporate has the right to take away the freedoms of the personal, but not vice versa.

[kikachuck]

Originally Posted by Tangent

I thank you, Kikachuck, for your spirited response, I must admit I do bear some grudging respect for your tenacity in defending the somewhat doomed position that libertarianism is an ideology of personal freedoms. Sadly, however, it does seem to me that, well: If my last post were a minefield, then you just cleared it - in the most limb-detatching way possible.

Ah the political arrogance of youth. You remind me of those guys in knew in college who took one political science class when they were freshman (or read the wikipedia page of a dictator) and suddenly think they are enlightened.

I agree, unionisation should never by mandatory - indeed it is illegal for it to be compulsory in my country, thank you very much, "Mrs T" - our saviour from the twin evils of stable employment and socialist oppression. However, you seem to be somewhat proving my point here in your statement that the employer (an unelected, wealthy individual - or a corporation, depending on the way you want to look at it) can ignore the collective of their employees. This, I presume, means that they can fire at will, and slash wages and conditions as they want, all in the face of earnest protests from the workers - and the law (made, I remind you, by the people - democratically) would be unable to touch the company. Similarly, I presume you advocate that the workers would not be able to bring unlawful dismissal charges against the company in this case - ergo, the corporation can persecute the workers, who are in turn stripped of any defence. Tres bon.

Why can't an employer fire at will? Or slash wages if they want? Employment should be voluntary on both sides. If a company wants to risk a PR disaster by getting sued for discriminatory policies, more power to them.

Again, you advocate giving the unelected individual or the corporation the right to steam-roller over the majority vote of the people. Who makes the laws? The government. Who elects the government? The people. Who votes on refferenda or plebiscites? The locals. Yet you suggest a multinational be let drive all their local businesses out of trading because it is their right as a coporation to do so. People cannot vote with their feet by not shopping at WalMart if there are no other stores left to shop at.

Did you ever see the play (or movie) The Crucible? The town essentially voted and agreed that all these people were witches, despite utter idiocy of the accusation. The town voted didn't they? Does that make their accusations morally correct?

Would you describe Margaret Thatcher as a libertarian? She was good friends with Pinochet. She was also good friends with Ronald Reagan (libertarian?). Milton Friedman was highly supportive of Pinochet - and he founded libertarianism, essentially. Pinochet has a lot to do with libertarianism, as his regime involved over-riding democracy with corporate interests, much as you suggest in your post.

I don't think ANY libertarian would call Thatcher or Regan as one of their own. As for Friedman's support, so what? And he was HARDLY a found of libertarianism, it's an ideology that goes back 100+ years. And corporatism is not the same as libertarianism, corporatism involves government and corporations working together, which is completely un-libertarian.

I am interested, do you defend people's rights to rape or murder others? Because those are issues where people's rights to commit evil have been removed under a democratic system, just as people's rights to say, use child-labour to manufacture their products should be able to be curtailed under a democracy.

What you don't seem to grasp is that libertarianism is not anarchy. Having freedom does not give you the right to take freedom away from others through killing or raping.

I have thought of another question:

Where is the "freedom" in the child-labour used by certain garment manufacuring companies (who shall remain un-unamed, for I fear a libel suit on the grounds it is technically their sub-contractors and therefore the companies themselves are completely innocent) to produce their products in countries like China and Indonesia? Does the corporation have the right to take those children's freedoms away? Why do the people not have the right to insist on, say, that manufacturing companies manufacture their goods in the countries in which they are intended for sale - thereby avoiding the human-rights issues and creating domestic jobs?

I presume the answer is, again, that the corporate has the right to take away the freedoms of the personal, but not vice versa.

The people do have that that right and they can exercise it by not buying those products. Public outcry does work. You are probably too young to remember this, but Kathy Lee Gifford took a huge publicity hit a few years ago because her goods were produced in sweat shops with child labor.

it seems, ultimately, that your beef is not with libertarianism, rather corporatism. On that point I agree with you.

[FishingWithLoki]

You can put all the window dressing on it that you want, but the bottom line is that libertarianism is what we used to call (very thinly veiled) social-Darwinism. It is anti-democratic at its core and makes very broad assumptions about human motivation and economic status. In this respect it is markedly authoritarian and replaces divine right with economic right to justify the gross redistribution of wealth to a few, while at the same time attempting to convince others of its intrinsic love of freedom (which economically is very rarely interpreted outside of the 'freedom' for employers to do whatever the hell they want).

Its typically rabid anti-union position (conspicuously toned down for this exchange) is a prime example of its distaste for democratic institutions. As unions are simply an expression of economic-democracy in the workplace (which are otherwise economic-tyrannies), it should come as no surprise that libertarians oppose closed shops. They are quick to talk about voluntary labor/employer relationships, but they do not accept that workers remain able to choose their employer whether or not a closed shop exists. Why? Because they understand what the labor-organizers understand; strong and democratic labor organizations mean economic power for workers. And economic power is precisely what the executive class does not want to extend to labor.

The executive class know that their claim to what amounts to a landed gentry is put at risk by organized labor and they have spent the better part of a century fighting it with, guess what - force. The very thing that libertarians claim to despise, above all. Physical force (private, pinkertonesque armies), and the wholesale purchase of government power via the force of capital (which is at the heart of libertarian theology) resulting in anti-labor legislation and the use of the police and national guard to intimidate and weaken worker rights in the workplace.

The general consensus is that libertarians are mostly just American Republicans who want to smoke pot and legalize prostitution. I don't think that this view is off the mark. But at its heart, what it really attempts to do is justify gross inequities in wealth by choosing the tired old argument that those with economic power are intrinsically good, while those who lack it also lack the moral conviction to 'succeed' in their world.

[Jnmcda0]

Originally Posted by FishingWithLoki

The general consensus is that libertarians are mostly just American Republicans who want to smoke pot and legalize prostitution. I don't think that this view is off the mark.

I disagree. Although most Libertarians probably support the legalization of marijuana and prostitution, I don't think that is their main reason for being Libertarian. I think it has just as much to do with the opposition of the federal reserve system, the size of the national debt, the government providing services that could more efficiently be serviced by the private sector (like the postal service, which is losing billions of dollars a year), and the use of the military as the world's police.

By the way, going by the strict dictionary definition, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, the people decide policy matters directly, through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf (or, as seems to be more often the case in the US, on behalf of multi-national corporate conglomerates who contribute millions of dollars to the Congressperson's campaign).

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Does the libertarian concept of freedom include the freedom for workers to unionise and collectively bargain with their employers over wages/conditions?

Sure, absolutely. Nobody should be prevented from voluntarily associating with others. I do, of course, strongly object to union shops where you are forced to be a union member to work there -- nothing at all voluntary about that.

Originally Posted by Tangent

Does it include the freedom for the people of small towns and villages, through local government referenda/plebiscites, to say, block a WalMart or similar large store setting up in town and driving the locally owned shops out of business by means of their bulk purchasing power?

The people of small towns (or communities of any size) are free to shop where they want. If they don't want Walmart, then they shouldn't shop there. It drives me nuts when people whine about how evil Walmart is and then when I go there the whole damn parking lot is full, suggesting to me that they love low prices far more than Mom & Pop shops.

Originally Posted by Tangent

Does it include the freedom for people to disagree with free-market ideology, without being killed, tortured or incarcerated, as in Pinochet's Chile?

Yes, I very strongly support freedom of speech/expression regardless of what I may think of the content. I have ear plugs & ear muffs, so I need not listen.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by kikachuck

What you don't seem to grasp is that libertarianism is not anarchy. Having freedom does not give you the right to take freedom away from others through killing or raping.

One of the standard straw man arguments against libertarians is that they support anarchy, which as you point out most certainly is not the case. I want small government, not no government as an anarchist would.

Libertarians oppose the use of force or coercion. Libertarians only support the use of force in defense of rights.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Ah, so I see a libertarian system is not a democracy.

Our current system is not a democracy and if you give this a bit of thought you'll see this is a good thing. Pure democracy is just a polite terms for mob rule.

If 51% of people vote that the other 49% should be killed then in a pure democracy those 49% shall be killed. It's clearly best not to be a member of any minority group in a pure democracy where majority rules.

Perhaps it's kind of important to protect the minority from the majority.

[Tangent]

I apologise, I do not presently have time to answer all of the points made so passionately above, so I shall do an ultra-shy and address points in individual posts when I get the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

Corporatism is not the same as libertarianism, corporatism involves government and corporations working together, which is completely un-libertarian.

Corporatism is, as you say, an alliance between state and business to supress and control the people. Libertarianism, as you define it above, seems to be much the same thing. The state allows businesses to buy up public land, over-rides local democracy in favour of the corporate, privatises whatever it can get away with, strips unions of legal recognition, slashes welfare and corporate taxation, tumbles anti-trust laws...while simultaneously big business exploits the lack of regulation to cut wages and conditions, export jobs abroad where there are less labour laws and fire workers at will.

Originally Posted by Kikachuck

Having freedom does not give you the right to take freedom away from others through killing or raping.

But it does give you the right to take away other's freedom through slave-labour? I am most intrigued that you state that the only defence against, say, child-exploitation, should be the associated public outrage, and not the law. Perhaps we can also rely on public outrage to deal with murder - the murderer in question will be crossed of a fair few christmas card lists, make no mistake!

As for your point about political arrogance and immaturity: Firstly, I don't think there is any need to get so nasty, let us debate, but not hurl insults. I dislike your ideals, but you as a person I do not know enough about to judge - I request you accord me the same privilege. However I do concede that my arguments above probably seem a bit preachy, hotheaded and devoid of stats. I can go and dig out references, stats and graphs if you wish to get in to such a debate - but this is a social anxiety forum, not a political one, and I really cant be bothered digging through my reference library for such an insignificant debate. There are other places for that.

[rcapo89]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

One of the standard straw man arguments against libertarians is that they support anarchy, which as you point out most certainly is not the case. I want small government, not no government as an anarchist would.

Libertarians oppose the use of force or coercion. Libertarians only support the use of force in defense of rights.

I think I should respond to some common misconceptions with terms "libertarianism" and "anarchist".
Libertarianism is a very broad and diverse political philosophy, ranging from extreme individualism to collectivism. Despite their differences, most advocate individual liberty and the limiting or even abolition of the state. The major disagreement is the subject of property. Most libertarians in the U.S. are free market capitalists, who support corporations.
On the other hand there are libertarian socialists who believe in the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property. Society as a whole would have direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared collectively. Libertarian socialist also criticize illegitimate authority in all aspects of social and political life.
Some even believe in the abolishment of the sate believing societies can still function and flourish without government. I'm not sure this is a realistic goal in an increasingly overpopulated and global society...
Anarchism has a negative connotation of violent revolution, chaos, and disorder. When it comes to political science, anarchism is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Here's a link to learn more about anarchism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Tangent]

I notice that I am being accused of confusing libertarianism with:

A - Anarachy
B - Corporatism

I find this a somewhat ironic pair of complaints.

If libertarianism is not anarchy, then it seems to me the role of the state is simply to provide the police and the soldiers to keep the people in line. Companies can do whatever they want, there are no longer any laws to stop them. The corporate can control the personal. The people have no recourse at law against big business, as they are now subject to the libertarian concept of "freedom". And if they attempt to take direct action, the state's soldiers and police will supress them - if this is not a co-operation of state and business against the citizenry then I do not know what is. Ergo, libertarianism is corporatism.

If libertarianism is not corporatism, then it is anarchy, as both the corporate and the personal become exempt from the law - there is no state, no leadership - and the original meaning of the greek term 'anarchy' is, I believe, "without a leader". Companies can exploit children, and the only backlash they need to fear is public outrage. People can murder each other, and the only backlash they need to fear is pariahdom.

[Cerberus]

Let's not confuse libertarianism in theory with libertarianism in practice. Libertarianism in theory is a quaint political ideology that sounds appealing with the hundreds of times they use "freedom" in their arguments, but comes across as naive when wanting to apply it to the real world.

People want power or social equality or they don't like being stuck with basic cable and a smaller apartment, while some rich guy gets a yacht and a mansion or the comfort (materially or psychologically) of wealth. Libertarianism would never work long because hardly anyone or no one would respect all this freedom libertarians talk about. Rich corporations would buy off the government to put down unions or mobs of people would get the government to stop the rich from owning just about everything or turning things into de facto feudalism. Class conflict would become agitated under the fantastical ideology of libertarianism, and larger government would inexorably ensue. Libertarianism is not sustainable.

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

...People want power or social equality or they don't like being stuck with basic cable and a smaller apartment, while some rich guy gets a yacht and a mansion or the comfort (materially or psychologically) of wealth.... Libertarianism would never work long because hardly anyone or no one would respect all this freedom libertarians talk about. Rich corporations would buy off the government to put down unions or mobs of people would get the government to stop the rich from owning just about everything or turning things into de facto feudalism. Class conflict would become agitated under the fantastical ideology of libertarianism, and larger government would inexorably ensue. Libertarianism is not sustainable.

This is of course, an excellent and valid point, eloquently expressed - and one I had not so far brought up.

But yes, what libertarians seem to overlook is the fact that people are unlikely to just lie down willingly under their policies. While the libertarian posters above talk about over-riding democracy, smashing unions, allowing companies to fire at will, build where they want, buy up public land, extinguish small/local business, slash wages and conditions, lower the minimum wage, slash welfare...they forget that this will annoy a lot of people.

The military and police would have to be called in to supress the rioting, and there would be blood on the streets, a la Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Poland, China, Britain, South Africa, Iraq...indeed, most places where radical free-marketism has actually been implemented in practice, come to think of it.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

If libertarianism is not anarchy, then it seems to me the role of the state is simply to provide the police and the soldiers to keep the people in line.

Yes, providing a military to defend our nation would certainly be a legitimate purpose of government. (Playing war in Iraq for no valid reason would not be included as legitimate.) Providing law enforcement and a judicial system would also be legitimate.

I don't really like the way you say "to keep the people in line," as they sounds like Nazi Germany or the former USSR or China today.

Companies can do whatever they want, there are no longer any laws to stop them. The corporate can control the personal. The people have no recourse at law against big business, as they are now subject to the libertarian concept of "freedom".

"The people" have a very powerful weapons to use against companies. If they don't like XYZ company they can choose to not work for XYZ, not buy whatever XYZ makes, and not finance the operations of XYZ by not buying any stock or bonds XYZ company may issue. They can boycott XYZ and spread the word about the dirty things XYX does using means like the internet that only reaches around the world.

If XYZ is publicly held then XYX is the PEOPLE, being owned by a collection of individuals.

And if they attempt to take direct action, the state's soldiers and police will supress them - if this is not a co-operation of state and business against the citizenry then I do not know what is. Ergo, libertarianism is corporatism.

That's most certainly not my definition of libertarianism. Libertarians oppose the use of force (except in the defense of rights). Your concept of government soldiers & police forcing you to do as some company wishes is clearly not consistent with my definition of libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Tangent

People can murder each other, and the only backlash they need to fear is pariahdom.

No true libertarian would think that way. Libertarianism is based on the idea that people have rights and the purpose of government is to protect those rights. (Note: rights already exist independent of government; government doesn't "grant" rights, though they regularly ignore rights.) Killing you would be a very clear violation of your rights. Even a minimal libertarian government would still include a judicial system to deal with criminals who kill you or try to kill you. And libertarians tend to strongly support gun rights, so thugs might not mess with you in the first place if they know that anyone might be packing a concealed weapon (you might not be, but do they want to take the risk of finding out).

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by UltraShy

Playing war in Iraq for no valid reason would not be included as legitimate.

Even though their state-owned oil-reserves were privatised? Even though corporate bodies like Haliburton, Blackwater (Now known as Xe, I believe) and the Carlyle group made huge profits out of it? Iraq was war libertarian style - privatised. There were points in the war when there were more contractors than soldiers sent out to iraq.

Originally Posted by UltraShy

If they don't like XYZ company they can choose to not work for XYZ, not buy whatever XYZ makes, and not finance the operations of XYZ by not buying any stock or bonds XYZ company may issue. They can boycott XYZ and spread the word about the dirty things XYX does using means like the internet that only reaches around the world.

That's all well and good, except that the corporate has a way of limiting choice. For instance, let us imagine a libertarian utopia in which price controls are gone, the minimum wage is slashed to next to nothing - or abolished altogether, there are no social benefits and the state provides no tax-funded services so everything must be purchased from profit-orientated businesses.

People, most people, no longer have much money to play with. If one wants to feed one's family, and WalMart or Tesco or whatever is the cheapest supplier of food - because it can use its bulk buying power to get lower prices (more pity the farmers) - then that's where people will shop. Not because they agree with its ethics, but because they are hungry - and let us not forget that, with libertarian abolition of labour laws, stable employment for the working classes is more or less a thing of the past.

Continuing in this vein, I imagine you libertarians would want to bring down all the anti-trust laws. Afterall, you wouldn't want to punish success, would you? If a business can buy out all its competitors and form a total monopoly, then why shouldn't it? Its just the laws of the market. Of course, now there is literally nowhere else to buy product/service X than company Y, because company Y has long since absorbed companies A, B, C and the rest of the alphabet. Without democratic regulation, the market does not provide an abundance of choice.

Originally Posted by UltraShy

Libertarians oppose the use of force (except in the defense of rights). Your concept of government soldiers & police forcing you to do as some company wishes is clearly not consistent with my definition of libertarianism.

The defence of rights? Such as the rights of companies to fire at will; ignore unions; slash wages; slash conditions; neglect health and safety...yeah, these are the sorts of "rights" that people will suffer from, which they will likely protest against, and your wonderfully libertarian state military and police will be there to suppress them.

Imagine, I don't know, say haulage companies get together and collectively decide to slash lorry driver's wages, and strip them of all benefits and remove secure contracts. Now, say these lorry drivers are pretty annoyed about the whole thing, so they go on strike. But hey, the companies don't need to recognise any unions, and there are no laws to stop them firing their drivers and hiring new ones straight away. And with no nasty redundancy payments, the cost of turnover is minimal. If the drivers take their case to court, they will get nowhere because there is no legal protection, with the law-makers on the side of the business.

Now, suppose that these haulage companies realise how easily they got away with all this, and they decide to slash wages again. And they lengthen the working hours, and reduce holidays. And the new set of drivers realise that striking will just get them fired and replaced, and nobody will notice. So instead, they take their lorries, and park them across various major road systems - mass transport disruption ensues, and people pay attention. That is, until your libertarian police arrives on the scene with their tear-gas launchers, to suppress this sort of sedition. In this way, we can see both the makers and enforcers of the law effectively forcing people to do "what some company wants".

It isn't so implausible after all, you should have seen the miner's strikes.

Originally Posted by UltraShy

libertarians tend to strongly support gun rights

I know, and I pity the school children who will die as a result. And their parents.

[Tangent]

Oh, and I apologise for the double post, but I must further query one point:

Why is it that you libertarians repeatedly tell me that if a company is, say, using child-labour, then people can just choose not to shop there, so there is no need for any legal action, and yet at the same time if a person were to exploit a child, they would face legal prosecution?

It seems you have one set of laws for corporations (i.e., kill, exploit, poison and pollute all you like - the law can't touch you, just hope you have a good PR department), and a different set of laws for people (i.e. if you do anything wrong, the police will be coming round and you will be prosecuted).

Is it fair to free the corporate from the influence of the law, but not the people?

[rcapo89]

I have always found it ironic that Right Wing Libertarians often oppose welfare for low-income people but slavishly defend and support corporate welfare.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

I know, and I pity the school children who will die as a result. And their parents.

I wanted to respond to this comment regarding gun rights. Gun rights are not what is killing kids. Every study I've ever seen regarding the safety of kids clearly shows that a school is the safest place a kid could be. A few rare school shootings get an exceptional amount of media attention since the more rare something is the more attention it gets. And in the media, if it bleeds it leads. This is the same over-the-top reporting style that has convinced many people that driving is safer than planes, since any commercial airline crash will get national coverage yet no car crashes will get national attention unless involving somebody really famous.

Just like week I saw an NRA poll which asked if you were a parent, grandparent, or had no kids.

Around 50% who responded to this NRA poll of "gun nuts" were grandparents. Another 30% were parents, leaving a childless minority of only 20%. The vast bulk of NRA members having kids -- with many of them having grandkids too. Given those numbers it's nonsensical to think NRA members are not concerned about kids. They certainly don't want their kids & grandkids coming home with bullet holes. That's why they believe in things like teaching kids safe gun handling, so they don't do stupid & dangerous things like pointing a gun at anybody else even if they think it's unloaded.